Navigation

Worst SUVs in 2012

2012's Worst
SUVs Sold in North America:Table and Chartsby James Bleeker

This page provides the table giving the 2012 Auto
Reliability GPAs and Grades of the worst sport-utility vehicles in
2012, charts of manufacturer shares of the worst SUVs in
2012, and a chart depicting the Overall Reliability GPAs
of the 15 best SUVs in 2012 and the 15 worst SUVs in
2012.

The Table

The table below provides the 2012 Auto Reliability
GPAs and Grades of the worst of the sport-utility
vehicles sold in the U.S.

Letter grades for automobile reliability are
determined thusly: A if the Auto Reliability GPA is 3.50
to 4.00, B if the Auto Reliability GPA is 2.50 to 3.49,
C if the Auto Reliability GPA is 1.50 to 2.49, D if the
Auto Reliability GPA is 0.50 to 1.49, and F if the Auto
Reliability GPA < 0.50.

The list of the worst SUVs in 2012 includes those
vehicles with an Overall Auto Reliability GPA from 0 to
1.84 - in letter grade, from the lowest F to a low C.
The list is in ascending order of Overall GPA, i.e.,
from worst to less worse.

The list of the worst SUVs in 2012 is of value to
those buyers who want to avoid the worst, but are rather
indifferent to whether a vehicle model is among the
best.

The
Overall Reliability GPAs and Grades of
the Worst SUVs in 2012

ID

Auto Manufacturer

Line/
Brand/
Make/
Marque

Model

Overall Reliability
GPA

Overall Reliability
Grade

No. of Model
Yrs of Data

196

General Motors

Chevrolet

Blazer

0.00

F

3

249

General Motors

Saturn

Outlook, all-wheel drive

0.00

F

3

376

Volkswagen

Volkswagen

Touareg

0.00

F

1

114

Chrysler

Dodge

Nitro

0.00

F

1

127

Daimler

Mercedes-Benz

R-Class

0.00

F

1

213

General Motors

Chevrolet

Tahoe Hybrid

0.00

F

1

361

Volkswagen

Audi

Q5,
V6

0.17

F

3

111

Chrysler

Dodge

Journey

0.17

F

3

124

Daimler

Mercedes-Benz

GL-Class

0.25

F

5

100

Chrysler

Chrysler

PT
Cruiser, non-turbo

0.33

F

8

94

Chrysler

Jeep

Wrangler, 4-door

0.33

F

5

219

General Motors

GMC

Acadia, all-wheel drive

0.33

F

5

178

General Motors

Buick

Enclave, all-wheel drive

0.38

F

4

282

Kia

Kia

Sorento, V6

0.56

D

7

220

General Motors

GMC

Acadia, front-wheel drive

0.61

D

5

147

Ford

Ford

Flex

0.67

D

3

298

Mazda

Mazda

Tribute, 4 cylinder, awd

0.67

D

3

362

Volkswagen

Audi

Q7

0.67

D

2

78

BMW

BMW

X5,
6-cylinder

0.71

D

9

190

General Motors

Cadillac

SRX, V6

0.75

D

7

222

General Motors

GMC

Envoy, V8

0.75

D

6

189

General Motors

Cadillac

Escalade

0.79

D

5

92

Chrysler

Jeep

Patriot

0.89

D

4

202

General Motors

Chevrolet

Equinox, V6

0.92

D

7

99

Chrysler

Chrysler

Pacifica

1.00

D

5

87

Chrysler

Jeep

Commander

1.00

D

3

289

Land Rover - Tata

Land Rover

LR3

1.00

D

1

88

Chrysler

Jeep

Compass

1.00

D

1

162

Ford

Lincoln

MKT

1.00

D

1

386

Volvo - Geely

Volvo

XC90, 6-cylinder

1.04

D

5

126

Daimler

Mercedes-Benz

M-Class, V6

1.06

D

7

211

General Motors

Chevrolet

Suburban

1.13

D

10

231

General Motors

GMC

Yukon XL

1.13

D

10

173

Ford

Mercury

Mountaineer, V8

1.25

D

8

214

General Motors

Chevrolet

Trailblazer, 6-cylinder

1.25

D

8

239

General Motors

Pontiac

Torrent

1.25

D

4

339

Porsche

Porsche

Cayenne

1.33

D

2

321

Nissan

Nissan

Armada

1.33

D

2

215

General Motors

Chevrolet

Traverse, all-wheel drive

1.33

D

3

165

Ford

Lincoln

Navigator

1.42

D

6

140

Ford

Ford

Explorer, V6, 4-wheel drive

1.44

D

10

293

Mazda

Mazda

CX-7

1.44

D

4

91

Chrysler

Jeep

Liberty

1.48

D

9

327

Nissan

Nissan

Pathfinder

1.48

D

8

89

Chrysler

Jeep

Grand Cherokee, 6-cylinder, V6

1.50

C

10

184

General Motors

Buick

Rendezvous

1.50

C

6

77

BMW

BMW

X5,
35d

1.50

C

2

90

Chrysler

Jeep

Grand Cherokee, V8

1.67

C

6

93

Chrysler

Jeep

Wrangler, 2-door

1.75

C

10

212

General Motors

Chevrolet

Tahoe

1.81

C

10

230

General Motors

GMC

Yukon

1.81

C

10

252

General Motors

Saturn

Vue, V6

1.81

C

8

136

Ford

Ford

Edge, all-wheel drive

1.83

C

5

262

Hyundai

Hyundai

Santa Fe, 4 cylinder

1.83

C

4

Note that among the worst sport-utility vehicles in 2012, there is
not one by Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Company, Suzuki Motor
Corporation, or the Subaru Division of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.

The manufacturers which have offered one or more of the most trouble
prone SUVs in 2012, as reported by Consumer Reports
subscribers and measured by the Overall Reliability GPA, are General Motors
Corporation (with 4 of the 12 worst, 8 of the 21 worst, 10 of the 30 worst,
15 of the 40 worst, 19 of the 54 worst), the Chrysler Group (with 4 of the
12 worst, 8 of the 30 worst, and 12 of the 54 worst), Daimler AG, Volkswagen
AG, Kia Motors Corporation, Mazda Motor Corporation, Ford Motor Company, BMW
AG, Land Rover, Volvo, Nissan Motor Company, Porsche AG, and Hyundai Motor
Company.

In summary, the worst SUVs are very heavily concentrated in two
automobile manufacturers - General Motors Corporation and the Chrysler
Group; however, the best sport-utility vehicles of 2012 are even more
heavily concentrated in two auto manufacturers.

Charts of Manufacturer Shares of the Worst SUVs in 2012

First is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 12 worst
sport-utility vehicles in 2012.

All of the 12 worst have a letter grade of F.

Next is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 21
worst SUVs in 2012.

All of the 21 worst have a letter grade of D or F.

Next is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 30
worst SUVs in 2012.

All of the 30 worst have a letter grade of D or F.

Next is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 40
worst SUVs in 2012.

All of the 40 worst have a letter grade of D or F.

Next is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 54
worst SUVs in 2012.

Chart of the Reliability GPAs of the Top 15 and
Bottom 15 SUVs

The following bar graph depicts the Overall Reliability GPAs of the 15
best sport-utility vehicles and 15 worst sport-utility vehicles in 2012

Caution

When the number of model years of data
(appearing in the far right column) for a vehicle is limited to more
recent years, the reliability GPAs, Average GPA, and Minimum GPA of
that vehicle may be less reflective of the vehicle's reliability
over a longer period of time.

The method of computation of the GPAs is probably familiar to nearly every college, technical school, and high school student.
A Grade Point of 4.00 (that is, an A) is given to a Consumer Reports Used Car Verdict
of "Much Better Than Average," a GP of 3.00 (that is, a B) is given to a CR
"Better Than Average" rating, a GP of 2.00 (that is, a C) to an "Average"
rating, a GP of 1.00 (that is, a D) to a "Worse Than Average" rating, and a
GP of 0.00 (that is, an F) to a "Much Worse Than Average" rating.
A Grade Point Average (GPA) is then computed for each vehicle age group
0-to-4 years, 2-to-6 years, 4-to-8 years and 6-to-10 years using Microsoft's
Average(a:b,[c:d],...) function. The Overall GPA given in the
table and chart above is the average of the four 4-year GPAs.

This volume of AutoOnInfo.net’s car guide series offers consumers and researchers an historical summary of the reliability and durability of car and truck brands and examines how these brands have fared in their U.S. market shares. It uses 6-year-old model entries in Consumer Reports’ Used Car to Avoid – also termed Vehicles to Avoid and Worst Cars, Year by Year – and CR’s reliability charts to ascribe quality grades to automobile brands for model-year groups 1985 to 1989, 1990 to 1994, 1995 to 1999, 2000 to 2004, 2005 to 2006, and 1985 to 2006. In addition to ascribing quality grades to each brand, it provides a chart that plots the number of the brand’s 6-year-old model entries in CR’s vehicles to avoid. To examine the effect that a brand’s reliability and durability has had on sales, two or more charts depicting the brand’s U.S. market shares for calendar years 1985 to 2009 are given. These grades and charts and the author’s comments impart an historical perspective that sheds light on the present condition of surviving vehicle lines and their future prospects, individual and institutional shortcomings, and what effect these may have on the U.S.

JB

The_50_Best_Cars_and_The_100_Worst_Cars_in_America_in_2013

Hard Copy Books by James Bleeker available on www.blurb.com

To the left are the icons of the hard copy editions of Volumes 2, 3, 4, and 5 of AutoOnInfo.net's Car Quality Series. To view a description of the book on blurb.com or purchase a copy, click the applicable icon.

JB

The_50_Best_Cars_and_The_100_Worst_Cars_in_America_in_2013

Kindle E-books by James Bleeker available on www.amazon.com

To the left are icons of the Kindle editions of Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4, of AutoOnInfo.net's Car Quality Series. To view a description of the book on amazon.com or purchase a copy, click the applicable icon. To view all, click here.

JB

To the left is an icon of the Kindle edition of Volumes 5, 6, and 7 of AutoOnInfo.net's Car Quality Series. To view a description of the book on amazon.com or purchase a copy, click the applicable icon. To view all, click here.

JB

The_50_Best_Cars_and_The_100_Worst_Cars_in_America_in_2013

Pdf Editions of Books by James Bleeker available on www.scribd.com

To the left are icons of the pdf editions of Volumes 2, 4, and 5 of AutoOnInfo.net's Car Quality Series. To view a description of the book on scribd.com or download a copy, click the applicable icon. The pdf editions of Volumes 4 and 5 are available at no charge.

To the left are icons of the pdf editions of Volumes 6 and 7 of AutoOnInfo.net's Car Quality Series. To view a description of the book on scribd.com or download a copy, click the applicable icon. The pdf edition of Volume 7 is available at no charge. Volumes 6 and 7 have enhanced navigational capability as well as an improved page style.